Talk:Logophoricity

RM Dechaine (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Outline

Below are the headings that we intend to use for this article.

1. Definition
2. History/Background
3. Properties
   1. semantic
   2. syntactic
4. Classification
   1. affixes
   2. reflexive pronouns
   3. individual pronouns
   4. other types of logophors (from Cunrow?)
5. Comparison with non-logophoric forms
6. Logophoricity and Binding Theory
   1. challenges to Binding Theory
   2. accounting for logophors using Binding Theory
7. Distribution
   1. West African Languages
   2. Asian languages
   3. European/Germanic languages
   4. Other languages
8. See also
9. References

Atonello (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography

The following are journal articles that will guide us in editing this Wiki in the near future.

Clements, G. N. (1975). The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages, 2, 141-177.

Clements presents data from the Ewe language of Ghana which demonstrates the usage of logophoric pronouns. He compares and contrasts these forms with personal pronouns in Ewe, and explains why prior analyses are insufficient in explaining the distinction between direct discourse and indirect (reported) discourse in this language. In addition, Clements draws on data from other languages that do or do not use logophoric pronouns (including Greek, Latin, Japanese, and English) in order to clarify the distinction between logophoric and non-logophoric forms. In this way, he demonstrates the conditions which sanction the usage of logophoric and personal and reflexive pronouns. However, he concedes that those conditions that control the appearance of logophors are not completely understood, and require further analysis. Overall, Clements’ account of logophoricity in Ewe is thorough, and his argumentation is supported by both positive and negative data from this language (as well as data from other languages). Atonello (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Curnow, T. (2002). Three Types of Verbal Logophoricity in African Languages. Studies in African Linguistics, 31(1-2), 1-25.

Curnow looks at logophoric cross-referencing, first person verb marking, and logophoric verbal affixes as three different types of logophoricity demonstrated in various African languages. He then examines their shared features and distinguishing properties, and how they can occur together in the same language. This article moves logophoricity beyond simple systems into non-exclusive types that can overlap and interact. It draws attention to the fact that the current typology of logophoricity allows for large gaps in classification. Cunrow acknowledges potential challenges to his ideas, and addresses them throughout the paper. He is thorough in his examples, and while the paper is not written in layman’s terms, it is still very understandable.

Harley, H. (1997). Logophors, variable binding and the interpretation of have. Lingua, 103, 75-z84.

Harley explores the use of the verb have in situations where its subject is coindexed with a logophor in the complement. She examines the semantic/pragmatic effects of -self (reflexive) pronominals in their application in argument position in order to better understand their logophoric status. The concept of ‘experiencer reading’ and other thematic effects on the verb have is also brought into play in various contexts, exploring locative, causative, and possessive usages. Though it does not focus on logophoricity as the central concept, this well-delineated application of phenomena sheds light onto the intricacies of logophors interacting with their environments in various structures. Kndouglas (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Koopman, H. (1989). Pronouns, logical variables, and logophoricity in abe. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(4), 555-588.

Abe, a Kwa language, has two series of third person pronouns: O-pronouns which behave like pronouns in English, and an n-pronoun which is used as both a referential pronoun and a logophoric pronoun. Koopman argues that the logophoric properties arise from purely syntactic factors, and that there are no logophoric pronouns as such in Abe. This paper is important with its emphasis on a purely syntactical analysis of logophors, whereas some others account for the distribution of logophors with semantics. However, her argument hinges on a feature [+n], which may itself be related to discourse. The article is written with a strong first person POV, but is coherent and clear. Koopman presents her argument in a systematic fashion, providing the background, data, analysis, and complications in that order. Her argument as a whole is very complex but very detailed and well-explained. Cchar94 (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

König, E., & Siemund, P. (1999, published 2000). Locally free self-forms, logophoricity, and intensification in English. English Language and Linguistics, 4(2), pp 183-204.

Within this article is a presentation and comparison of three different analyses of ‘locally free self- forms’ in English, separated into ‘untriggered reflexives’, ‘viewpoint reflexives’, and ‘perspective logophors’. König and Siemund explore different trains of thought from Zribi-Hertz’s idea (1989) that self-forms are “bound by a minimal consciousness within a discourse” (i.e. emphasize the perspective of their antecedent); through Reinhart and Reuland’s (1993) examination of their distribution as compared to pronouns in a kind of allomorphic relationship, via the use of, e.g., him vs himself in a given context; and finally to Baker’s (1995) assessment of self-forms as intensifiers without pronominal heads. After stating the insufficiency of Binding Theory to present a compelling explanation for such occurrences in English, they conclude that Baker’s argument is the most sound and comprehensive, given an appropriate analytical structure. A wealth of grammatical and ungrammatical examples are provided in support of each step in König and Siemund’s reasoning. The particular examination of English, the different viewpoints discussed, and the subject’s relevance in relation to Binding Theory make it a useful resource for our project. Kndouglas (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Kuno, S. (1972). Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(2), 161-195.

Kuno compares English pronouns to the Japanese reflexive zibun. He argues that in both languages, the behaviour of these two forms is contingent on whether the subject of a matrix sentence is aware of, or directly felt, what is being represented in the content of an embedded clause (or the entire sentence). Of particular interest is the reflexive zibun, which is only coreferential with the sentential subject when it occurs in embedded clauses in which the subject’s internal feeling or awareness is represented. As such, Kuno argues that the usage of this reflexive is controlled by semantic factors. This is in contrast with English, in which the expression of a subject’s internal feeling or awareness is determined by the syntax - i.e., it is a feature of particular verbs. Kuno does caution, however, that the use of the sentential subject’s “direct feeling representation” (p. 194) is an oversimplification, and that further research is required to determine the common mechanism underlying the behaviour of English pronouns and the Japanese reflexive zibun. Despite this limitation, Kuno’s work is very detailed, with many examples of both grammatical and ungrammatical utterances in English and Japanese. (Note: the author does not explicitly use the term “logophor”, as this term was coined in: Hagège, C. (1974). Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 69(1), 287-310.) Atonello (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Liu, L., & He, N. (2012). Logophoricity, highlighting and contrasting: A pragmatic study of third-person reflexives in chinese discourse. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(1), 69-84.

Liu and He use their pragmatic principle to look at the two types of third-person reflexives in Chinese, simplex (which act as logophors) and complex (used to emphasize pronouns), and to determine the distribution and function of them in Chinese discourse. All of their data comes from Chinese news articles, Chinese novels, and English-Chinese translations of novels. Their formulation of the pragmatic principle used for analysis consists of an Interpretation Maxim (how a reflexive is deemed to be logophoric) and a Production Maxim (when a type of reflexive is used). Using their pragmatic principle, they argue that there are two constructions in which anaphors are used in Chinese discourse: single-fold anaphora and multifold anaphora. The way the data is presented can be difficult to follow, but the explanations following them summarize them well. DzhouLING300 (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Maling, J. (1984). Non-clause-bounded reflexives in modern icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7(3), 211-241.

In modern Icelandic, the distribution of non-clause-bounded reflexives (NCBR) presents implications for the Binding Theory. Maling argues that the reflexive pronouns have two distinct roles: a regular anaphor adhering to Principle A, and a more semantic role which resemble the logophoric pronouns. She outlines the distribution of NCBR in embedded clauses of subjunctive mood, giving rise to a semantic interpretation. This paper contributes a European language exhibiting properties of logophoricity which is usually associated with West African languages. Through mostly a neutral third person POV, Maling provides many data and some trees, but I feel more negative data would help in comprehending her points. In addition, I feel like the argument was not presented in a linear fashion which makes it hard to follow, in addition to the heavy use of jargon. Cchar94 (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Minkoff, S. (2004). Consciousness, Backward Coreference, and Logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry, 35(3), 485-494.

Minkoff proposes a new co-reference requirement, Principle E, in addition to binding theory in order to explain certain linguistic contrasts. Principle E dictates that a free self-anaphor must co-refer with, and be in the backward co-reference domain of, and expression whose co-referent typically posses consciousness. This principle broadens the notion of logophoricity, as the dependencies it requires do not fit into previously accepted syntactic taxonomies. It also has implications for cross-linguistic notions of logophoricity. Minkoff allows that his suggested Principle may not involve logophoricity, but does not address the impact this would have on his conclusions. The article is brief and uses multiple examples to demonstrate the point the author is trying to make.

Nikitina, T. (2012). Logophoric discourse and first person reporting in wan (west africa). Anthropological Linguistics, 54(3), 280-301.

Nikitina analyzes how logophoric forms are used in reporting speech in the West African language of Wan. She looks at how logophors are used in reporting discourse and how it contrasts with first person reporting. She argues that because Wan has a distinction in indirect and direct reporting speech, it may help explain how logophors do not include the current speaker from being a referent of the logophors they use, and it supports the idea that different languages use different methods of conveying thoughts, experiences, and knowledge. In this article, Nikitina comes to her conclusions based on the comparisons of various contexts and sentences that would be used by native speakers of Wan in those contexts. Although this article assumes a certain amount of knowledge of the reader, it provides an interesting discussion about uses of logophors between languages. DzhouLING300 (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)